Edited 3/29/2013 4:11 pm
Note from O.E.: -An inbuement- regarding termination shock from "unintended" Geoengineering [i][ii][iii].
This shock may be counteracted by reducing 'aviation contrails' [iv] and short lived pollutants besides CO2 since these two forms of "unintended' Geoengineering actually lead to significant warming [v] [vi].
The failure from the 'geoengineering community' to investigate the side effects that these activities may have had and continues to have (in the context of Geoengineering) in respect to ongoing events of climate extremes and climate change, is in my view the single greatest factor that leads to the evident distrust, and more, of Geoengineering in general. It is absolutely irresponsible! A problem of their own making.
[i] "We may
know more, science writer Oliver Morton reports, when the cargo shipping
industry comes under stricter emissions regulations in about 10 years.
Oceangoing ships emit a lot of sulfur, which helps to brighten marine clouds. By
reducing such emissions, the shipping industry “will inadvertently commit the
world to significant extra warming,” he says."
[ii] "It is
important to recognize that we are at present involved in a large project of
inadvertent "geoengineering" by altering atmospheric chemistry"
[iii]
"regular commercial and operational activities, shipping, aviation, other
stuff that are every day imposing environmental perturbations that are the same
scale or bigger than any research project"
[iv] A safer
alternative to Solar Radiation Management (Geoengineering)
[v] Cutting
Short-lived Pollutant Can Halve Near-term Warming
[vi] Contrails
warm the world more than aviation emissions
From:
20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea
ALAN ROBOCK Rutgers University
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf
20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea
ALAN ROBOCK Rutgers University
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf
10. Rapid
warming if deployment stops. A technological, societal, or political crisis
could halt a project of stratospheric aerosol injection in middeployment.
Such an
abrupt shift would result in rapid climate warming, which would produce much
more stress on society and ecosystems than gradual global warming.[17]
11. There’s
no going back. We don’t know how quickly scientists and engineers could shut
down a geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the event of excessive climate
cooling from large volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols
into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them.
12. Human
error. Complex mechanical systems never work perfectly. Humans can make
mistakes in the design, manufacturing, and operation of such systems. (Think of
Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, airplane crashes, and friendly fire on the
battlefield.)
Should we stake the future of Earth on a much more complicated
arrangement than these, built by the lowest bidder?
[17] See Figure 1 in Wigley, “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization,” pp. 452–54,
and Figure 3 in H. Damon
Matthews and Ken Caldeira, “Transient ClimateCarbon Simulations of Planetary Geoengineering,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, pp. 9,949–54 (2007)
More resources:
Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse
A global catastrophe scenario involving climate change, geoengineering, and a separate catastrophe. (Italics mine)
Abstract:
Perceived
failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has prompted interest in avoiding
the harms of climate change via geoengineering, that is, the intentional
manipulation of Earth system processes.
Perhaps,
the most promising geoengineering technique is stratospheric aerosol injection
(SAI), which reflects incoming solar radiation, thereby lowering surface
temperatures.
This paper
analyzes a scenario in which SAI brings great harm on its own. The scenario is
based on the issue of SAI intermittency, in which aerosol injection is halted,
sending temperatures rapidly back toward where they would have been without
SAI.
The rapid
temperature increase could be quite damaging, which in turn creates a strong
incentive to avoid intermittency. In the scenario, a catastrophic societal
collapse eliminates society's ability to continue SAI, despite the incentive.
The
collapse could be caused by a pandemic, nuclear war, or other global
catastrophe. The ensuing intermittency hits a population that is already
vulnerable from the initial collapse, making for a double catastrophe.
While the
outcomes of the double catastrophe are difficult to predict, plausible
worst-case scenarios include human extinction.
The
decision to implement SAI is found to depend on whether global catastrophe is
more likely from double catastrophe or from climate change alone.
The SAI
double catastrophe scenario also strengthens arguments for greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and against SAI, as well as for building communities that
could be self-sufficient during global catastrophes.
Finally,
the paper demonstrates the value of integrative, systems-based global catastrophic
risk analysis.
Seth D. Baum, Timothy M. Maher, Jr., and Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013. "Double catastrophe: Intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse". Environment, Systems and Decisions, vol. 33, no. 1 (March), pages 168-180.
EPA Bans
Sooty Ship Fuel Off U.S. Coasts
New
regulations prevent ships from burning highly polluting bunker fuel in American
territorial waters
Los invito a que lean también mi semanario en español:
GEOINGENIERIA DEL CLIMA - Temas sobre la Geoingeniería Climática - Modificación del Clima
Y en inglés con algunos articulos en español: #Geoengineering #Climate Issues
http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963
No comments:
Post a Comment